DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the continuation of the investigation in FIR No. 63/2005 registered at P. S. Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur for the offence under Section 323, 498-A and 496 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 28. 2. 2002 according to Hindu rites. However, after the marriage the petitioner discovered that his wife is physically ill. Whenever he would enquire about her health, she would quarrel with him and his parents. During the period of pregnancy and even after the pregnancy he asked respondent No. 2 about consuming lot of medicines. But, the respondent No. 2 would not tell him the reasons for consuming so many medicines. Once he even saw her vomiting blood. When he enquired about vomiting of the blood, she made some excuses and claimed that the blood was coming from her teeth. On 6. 3. 03, the respondent No. 2 delivered a girl. THE child was born with a tumor on her right eye. When the same was examined, the doctors told the petitioner that the child is suffering from tuberculosis which has been transmitted by the mother. Thus, the petitioner discovered that the respondent No. 2 was suffering from tuberculosis even prior to the marriage - a fact which was never revealed to him prior to the marriage. Whenever the petitioner confronted her with this fact, she would quarrel with him and would abuse both him and his parents and other family members. Finally she left the matrimonial home on 22. 11. 03. Despite the best the efforts made by the petitioner to bring respondent No. 2 back to the matrimonial home, the respondent No. 2 refused to go back. THErefore, on 18. 5. 04 the petitioner filed a divorce petition in the Court of Civil Judge at Mathura. Subsequently, the said petition was amended on 1. 10. 04. Ever since the respondent No. 2 received the notice of the said petition, the family members of respondent No. 2 stated threatening the petitioner that he would be implicated in a false dowry case or that he would be killed. THE petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 10. 9. 04, wherein he informed the police that the family members of respondent No. 2 were threatening him. On 28. 9. 04 he also informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura that respondent No. 2, her father and brother were threatening his life. On 15. 10. 2004, the respondent No. 2's father and brother, Harchand and Krishnaveer, came to the petitioner's house and assaulted his parents in his absence. THE petitioner informed the police station Magorra, and a formal FIR No. 46/04 was registered for offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC against the brother and father of respondent No. 2. Since the matter related to non-cognizable offences, therefore the Court of A. C. J. M. directed the police to carry out an investigation under Section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. However, since no action was being taken by the police properly, on 5. 11. 2004, the petitioner complained to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Mathura. He also submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Mathura on 7. 12. 2004. Allegedly, on 24. 12. 04, the brother of respondent No. 2, Krishnaveer, came alongwith anti-social elements and again assaulted and abused the petitioner's family members. A complaint about this incident was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police at Mathura. Since the petitioner's family was terrorised by the repeated assaults by the family was terrorised by the repeated assaults by the family members of respondent No. 2, on 17. 1. 05, the petitioner's father filed a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura and prayed that action be taken against them under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. On the basis of this complaint eventually proceedings under Section 107/116 were started against the respondent No. 2, Harchand and Krishnaveer before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mathura. Meanwhile the petitioner also lodged a criminal complaint before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur against respondent No. 2, Harchand and Krishnaveer, Shanti Devi, Mamta, Dalveer Singh, Manoj and Dhani Ram. This complaint was sent for investigation by the learned Magistrate and a formal FIR No. 55/05 was registered for offences under Section 143, 323, 341 and 379 IPC. In order to retaliate against the FIR lodged by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 on 22. 3. 05 lodged an FIR against the petitioner, his parents, his brother and sister for offences under Section 323, 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur. THE said FIR was registered as FIR No. 263/05. It is this FIR, which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) ALTHOUGH at the first blush this case appears to be a criminal case, but recently in the case of B. S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003 Cr. L. R. (SC) (Supp.) 526) while dealing with a case under Section 498-A/323 and 406 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offence under Section 498-A is compoundable and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Since the said offence is compoundable and since matrimonial harmony should be maintained as much as possible, the court should endeavour to strike a reconciliation between the husband and the wife. Undoubtedly, the family is a basic unit of the society. Therefore, the family unit needs to be protected and promoted. In case there is a threat to the family as a unit, by the fighting of the of the husband and the wife, the court must try, at the first instance, to harmonise the relationship between the husband and wife. In case the court fails to strike a reconciliation between the two parties, the court is free to decide the case on its merits.